This Is What Happens When You Over-think Things!

Or in the case of the drivers, possibly underthink things. I don't disagree these deaths are tragic, but why is the manufacturer always blamed? At what point should owners be expected to take responsibility for their actions? To me this is kind of like suing gun owners when their product is used in a crime, or suing a bar if a patron gets in an accident while intoxicated after leaving their establishment. Seems more like people going after an alternate source of income rather than taking responsibility.

I guess engineers should stop innovating, someone might get hurt. Stop making cars and go back to walking barefoot everywhere. Less chance of deadly accidents.

[Stepping down from my soap box]

-Rod

Or in the case of the drivers, possibly underthink
things. I don't disagree these deaths are tragic, but
why is the manufacturer always blamed? At what point
should owners be expected to take responsibility for their
actions? To me this is kind of like suing gun owners when
their product is used in a crime, or suing a bar if a patron
gets in an accident while intoxicated after leaving their
establishment. Seems more like people going after an
alternate source of income rather than taking responsibility.

I guess engineers should stop innovating, someone might
get hurt. Stop making cars and go back to walking barefoot
everywhere. Less chance of deadly accidents.

[Stepping down from my soap box]

-Rod

Or, they could just continue making cars as they have been making them for the last eighty years, with a time-proven floor or column gear shifter, instead of complicating that basic and intuitive task with knobs or buttons one has to take their eyes off the road for even two seconds to do.

If I have to turn a knob to accomplish something, it had better be on the door to my house, or my uncle's surviving 19" B&W Philco.

The mechanical linkages and physical size and materials to make the old school floor and column gear shifters add complexity, cost (material), weight, and limit the ability to include, interestingly enough, safety features. A "happy median" might be to do like some manufacturers and use a dinky little stick or lever that moves like a more traditional shift lever but takes up much less space, is still electronic in function, but may be deemed less confusing.

I have the rotary shift knob in my Ram and honestly I don't find it the least bit confusing. The shift pattern is just like a standard column shifter, PRND. Lower gears can be selected via buttons on the steering wheel. Instead of using my entire hand on a long lever to rotate the gear selection knob, I use two fingers. The muscle memory is the same.

The biggest issue I've had so far with the shift knob is that it's in the same general vicinity as the radio knob, which since I'm somewhat old school too I tend to use versus only the steering wheel volume buttons. There have been times that I've grabbed the shift know instead of the volume knob. However the size of the knobs and the texture is significantly different and I have yet to inadvertently turn the shift knob instead of the volume knob.

Distracted driving and always being in a rush are probably bigger factors in people forgetting to make sure their vehicle is in park versus the means of putting it in park. At least with these new technologies, it can be relatively easy to fix the issue with a software change to check the brake pedal input, gear selected, and door ajar switch and automatically engage the electric parking brake (in some vehicles) or command the transmission to Park and alert the driver that the selector is not in Park. The old school mechanical column and floor shifters cannot be made more safe through software.

I think that's the root of the lawsuit - Range Rover/Jaguar is not pushing such a software fix for what appears to be a known issue. How many people had cars, trucks, tractors, etc. roll over them in the old school times though because the operator forgot to properly prepare the vehicle for exiting? Back then though, folks were probably embarrassed to admit they screwed up. And they understood that they shouldn't blame someone else for their lack of common sense.

-Rod

The mechanical linkages and physical size and
materials to make the old school floor and column gear
shifters add complexity, cost (material), weight, and limit
the ability to include, interestingly enough, safety features.
A "happy median" might be to do like some manufacturers
and use a dinky little stick or lever that moves like a more
traditional shift lever but takes up much less space, is still
electronic in function, but may be deemed less confusing.

I have the rotary shift knob in my Ram and honestly I don't
find it the least bit confusing. The shift pattern is just like a
standard column shifter, PRND. Lower gears can be selected
via buttons on the steering wheel. Instead of using my entire
hand on a long lever to rotate the gear selection knob, I use
two fingers. The muscle memory is the same.

The biggest issue I've had so far with the shift knob is that it's
in the same general vicinity as the radio knob, which since I'm
somewhat old school too I tend to use versus only the steering
wheel volume buttons. There have been times that I've grabbed
the shift know instead of the volume knob. However the size of
the knobs and the texture is significantly different and I have yet
to inadvertently turn the shift knob instead of the volume knob.

Distracted driving and always being in a rush are probably bigger
factors in people forgetting to make sure their vehicle is in park
versus the means of putting it in park. At least with these new
technologies, it can be relatively easy to fix the issue with a
software change to check the brake pedal input, gear selected,
and door ajar switch and automatically engage the electric parking
brake (in some vehicles) or command the transmission to Park
and alert the driver that the selector is not in Park. The old school
mechanical column and floor shifters cannot be made more safe
through software.

I think that's the root of the lawsuit - Range Rover/Jaguar is not
pushing such a software fix for what appears to be a known issue.
How many people had cars, trucks, tractors, etc. roll over them in
the old school times though because the operator forgot to
properly prepare the vehicle for exiting? Back then though, folks
were probably embarrassed to admit they screwed up. And they
understood that they shouldn't blame someone else for their lack
of common sense.

-Rod

I believe that the real lack of common sense lies in the belief that everything must have a "software solution" nowadays. Classic example: The 737-Max7/8/9/10* variants, with their "MCAS" software.

Instead of just spending the money to develop a new intermediate passenger platform with enough room under-wing to mount the latest/largest engines, Boeing goes el-cheapo, mounting engines bigger than the original DC-10 powerplants well forward and partially above the wing of the new Max model.

This creates a demonstrated risk of excess upward pitch during takeoff, which Boeing attempted to fix with software, without full training pilots on what to expect should that software have to kick in. The result, hundreds dead in two crashes of the Max due to insufficient pilot training.

It's one thing to use software to assist in commercial jet navigation, but quite another when it is needed to assist with in-flight stability. I believe in designing a stable aircraft in the first place.

It's a Video Game Generation.

It's a Video Game Generation.

Yeah, I dig videogames too - in my living room, not on the road driving.

I'm not saying everything has to have a software solution, but there is a lot of flexibility that software can provide. And when the government starts mandating fuel economy numbers or a penalty if those numbers are not met, manufacturers have to get creative with weight savings and efficiency. A low current wire or two and rotary encoder dial with some software weighs a whole lot less than a mechanical linkage, or even a sturdy large lever intended to mimic a mechanical gear selector. Plus, as mentioned before, it has the added benefit of being able to implement safety features not even imaginable with the old mechanical method.

Additionally, there's no way fuel economy and emissions of an internal combustion engine would be anywhere near where they are today without the incorporation of software.

While I'm not a software engineer or a gamer, I can certainly understand there are several benefits to incorporating it into modern vehicles.

-Rod

What is a 19" philco?

What is a 19" philco?

It's an old brand of television set. They also made radios and probably a few other things.

Based on this and numerous other posts, I'm starting to get the feeling you're here just to build post counts. I hope I'm wrong about that....

-Rod

It's an old brand of television set. They also made
radios and probably a few other things.

Based on this and numerous other posts, I'm starting
to get the feeling you're here just to build post counts.
I hope I'm wrong about that....

-Rod


If Carfan is of Millennial/post-Millie age, I could understand his not knowing that.

Yeah, but they have multiple other posts in other threads where they just simply ask, "What is a ____?" And one where they asked "What kind of Cadillac?" and the original poster said "It's not like I'm painting a Cadillac here." Sure, there are different sizes and quality of Cadillacs, but it still was starting to feel like a likely spammer just attempting to build their post count. I guess we'll have to see if they check back and defend themselves.

-Rod

I'm of the same thinking as you Rod. Definitely smells like a spambot.

The problem is really that the UI has changed. If you change a UI, then experienced people need to relearn. It doesn't affect the novice nearly as much since they never learned the "old" UI.

Drivers who are familiar with the old UI (e.g. column shift lever) know how to tell if it is in gear, neutral, or park. They need time (often more than a novice) to relearn that feedback. It is the known risk of UI design.

I was around (and pretty young) when the high/low beam switch moved from the floor to the column. I can't tell you the number of times I pushed my foot down on the floor to switch my high beams down. I don't do it any more.

These changes should not be done so casually.

The problem is really that the UI has changed. If you change a UI, then experienced people need to relearn. It doesn't affect the novice nearly as much since they never learned the "old" UI.

Drivers who are familiar with the old UI (e.g. column shift lever) know how to tell if it is in gear, neutral, or park. They need time (often more than a novice) to relearn that feedback. It is the known risk of UI design.

I was around (and pretty young) when the high/low beam switch moved from the floor to the column. I can't tell you the number of times I pushed my foot down on the floor to switch my high beams down. I don't do it any more.

These changes should not be done so casually.

There are also some user interfaces that need no changing at all.

People weren't getting their vehicles in park properly before the dials started. The dial isn't the problem, its the operator.